Allowed

Sangem Umarani v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Feb 2023CRLP/10248/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for cheating and criminal misappropriation. The court held that the transactions pertained to the sale of property and were civil in nature, intended to be settled through a civil suit for specific performance. Since the accused's mere failure to register the deed did not establish fraud

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No. 1411 of 2020 against petitioners 1 to 4 are hereby quashed.

Sangem Umarani Vs the State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^'10248 OF 2022

¶7

Between

¶8

Sangem Umarani, W/o, Late Narsinnha, Aged 52 Years, occ. House Wife, R/O,H.No.5-2-94,Sikkh wada, Tulsi Nagar, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶9

Sangem Keerthi, W/O, Narsimha, Aged 31 Years, occ. Private Employee, R/O,H.No.5-2-94,Sikkh wada, Tulsi Nagar, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶10

Sangem Vishal Babu, S/o, Late Narsimha, Aged 28 Years, occ. Private Employee, RyO, H. No.5-2-94, Sikkh wada, Tulsi Nagar, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶11

Panthangi Narsimha, S/o, Anjaiah, Aged 38 Years, occ. House Wife, Rl/O, Near Markondaya Swami Temple, Cherlpally Village,Nalgonda District.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos.1 -4

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor High Court Telangana at Hyderabad

¶15

Chilukuri Venkateswarlu, S/o, Appaiah, Aged 50 Years, Occ- Business, Rl/O H.No.6-2-12421 A, New Venkateswara Colony, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to^quash the Proceedings in C.C.No. 1411 ol 2020, on the file of Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate (Junior Civil Judge) at Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶18

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the lr,temorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further Proceedings C.C.No. 1411 o'f 2O2O on the file of

¶20

Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate (Junior Civil Judge) at Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M V S SAI KUIVAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.2

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10248 OF 2022

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminai Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/Accused I to 4 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No. 141 I of 2020 for the offences under Sections 406, 42O rlw, 34 of IPC on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate (Junior Civil Judge), at Nalgonda.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Ptrblic Prosecutor for the 1"t respondent State. Peruse<l the record.

¶28

The 2na respondent filed complaint stating that he has given an amount of Rs.19,50,000/- to the petitioners A,1 to A4 for the purpose of registration of the house and shop in an extent of 145 sq.yds situated at Sikh Wada, Nalgonda town. The total sale consideration u,as decided at Rs.55.00 lakhs.

¶29

The grievance of the 2"d respondent is that though Rs.19,50,OO0/- was given out of Rs.55.00 lakhs, the registration was not done in spite of request made to execute the registered deed by accepting the remaining amount.

¶30

¶31

On the basis of the said complaint, police registered crime and after investigation, fiIed charge sheet for the offences punishabie under Sections 406, 42O r/w 34 of IPC.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the transactions in the complaint pertain to the sale of residential house and a civil suit was frled in O.S.No.31 of 2O2l on the file of Principal District Judge at Nalgonda for specific performance. For the said reason, the transaction being civil in nature, proceedings have to be quashed.

¶33

7 . On the other hand, on beha-lf of the responderlts it u,as argued that having taken Rs.19,50,000/-, sincc the petitione rs failed to register, it amounts to an offence of cheating and crimirral misappropriation, for the said reason, petition has to be clismissed 8. Admittedly, civil suit O.S.No.31 of 2O21 is filed by the 2tta respondent against A,1 and A,3. However, it is not narrated as to hou, 42 and A4 were implicated in the criminal case. Further, it is not disputed that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.55.00 1akhs, Rs.19,50,OO0/- was already paid. It is not the case of the complainant nor was it found during investigation that the petitioners 1 and 3 did not possess the said property u4-rich thev intend to sell to the 2"d respondent. Only for the reason of the sale

¶34

¶35

¶36

transaction not concluding, will not amount to an offence of cheating or criminal misappropriation.

¶37

To attract an offence under Section 42O of IPC, it has to be shown that at the inception of the transaction the accused had fraudulent intention to defraud the complainant. Admittedly, the property was sold to the 2"a respondent. However, the transaction was not concluded. In the said circumstances, only for the reason of making part payment, the same would not amount to an offence of cheating and none of the ingredients of Section 42O of IPC are made out. The amount given towards part payment is now the subject matter of civil Suit which was filed for specific performance. lt cannot be said that the petitioners have not denied receiving the said amount. In the said circumstances, the question of criminal misappropriation does not arise only for the reason of the tran saction not taking place. The transaction is purely civil in nature and the criminal course cannot be used as tool to settle the civil disputes.

¶38

In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/Al to A4 in 1411 of 2O2O on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate (Junior Civil Judge) at Nalgonda, are hereby quashed.

¶39

¶40

Accordingly, the^{Criminal Petition is allowed' Miscellaneous}

¶41

applications pending, if^{any, shall stand closed'}

¶42

SD/.P.PADMANABHA REEDY AsslsrANr RESSTRAR //rRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

1 . The Judicial First Class Magistrate (Junior Civil Judge) at Nalgonda,

¶45

Nalgonda District-

¶46

One CC to SRl. M V S SAI KUMAR, Advocate.[OPUC]

¶47

Two CGs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶48

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410212023

ORDER

CRLP.No.10248 of 2022

¶54

s1.\TE
q
o
Ig \qt$
!)

¶55

ALLOWING THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS

Sangem Umarani v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangem Umarani v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Sree Ramulu, I.P.S Vs State of Telangana

Hari Sreedhar Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Mamidi Muralidhar Vs The State of Telangana

Bandi Srikanth Yadav Vs Makken Rajendar Singh

K.Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Akbar Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana and another